A Thought on Units and Reforms.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

the romans where just lucky as hell their had so many able man in the 200 years they took to conquer men like marius sulla lucullus pompey or cesar or dentatus if one was to replay the roman history without their luck they probably would have been cornered down beteween the samnites and carthies as they where a few times but they had the great man to lead them and give them a path and those same men unbending and unrellenting moral strenght (but then again religious conservative men always are in some ways )

also everyone keeps forgetting that altough the romans hated the kelts and promissed revenge the trufh of the matter is that without brennus sacking and destroying rome´s enermies in the 4th century rome would have never been able to beat the etrurians or gain the aura of the shield against the kelts that enabled them to gain so many allies in italy and gave them thus the critical mass they needed to become a regional power

even in their civil wars they where always extremly lucky that their best didn´t ended up poisened (most of the times at least) and most of their men became stronger thanks to so much fighting

because the roman army everytime they went inactive for a while and became lazy as everyone else does they suffered tremendous defeats

rome only real advantage against all the other factions was their sheer moral resilience to never give up all they rest they borrowed from others and/or where just lucky to find the right leader for the right situation (example given cesar i doubt anyone else would have been able to beat the gauls win a few victories sure ofc but winning the way he did time and time again thats something special that no other could have done)

Other than Dentatus I don't see how those on that list could be described as "religious conservative men " , but I take your point about 'luck' being a factor. But, was it 'luck'? The luck was surely in formenting a governmental system which encouraged the competition that Rome's system clearly did, and encouraged that so that martial and political skills were necessary tools of the job. Within the Roman political structure there was then a continuum of talented generals and astute politicians, so that 'luck' played less and less a part of Rome's success.

If I take Gaul as an example, YES Caesar was a talented commander, but Gaul had been weakened by Rome's interference and manipulation. In the same way that Rome played one Greek faction off against another (utilising their natural hostilities toward each other), so they played it in Gaul. While retaining the Aedui as friends and allies they, upon defeating the Arverni and Allobroges, left the Arverni as an independent 'state' - unlike the Allobroges. Why? Well, it makes sense in terms of not allowing the Aedui too much power within aul. The Arverni were their most implacable enemies, so by having both 'states' as friends and allies, well... their hands were tied; they could not chose one side over another. And then, when the Aedui were again so powerful within Gaul that the Sequani (with their allies the Arverni) brought in aid from the Sweboz, the Romans (and it seems that Caesar himself was involved in this) - instead of coming to the aid of the Aedui, instead made Ariovistus another friend and ally of Rome. It all worked out rather well for Caesar, of course, who was 'lucky' that the original recipient of Transalpine Gaul should die before he took his province, and that he knew so much about the goings on in Gaul...